Search

BACKGROUND: The cluster randomized controlled trial on (cost-)effectiveness of integrated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management in primary care (RECODE) showed that integrated disease management (IDM) in primary care had no effect on quality of life (QOL) in COPD patients compared with usual care (guideline-supported non-programmatic care). It is possible that only a subset of COPD patients in primary care benefit from IDM. We therefore examined which patients benefit from IDM, and whether patient characteristics predict clinical improvement over time. METHOD: Post-hoc analyses of the RECODE trial among 1086 COPD patients. Logistic regression analyses were performed with baseline characteristics as predictors to examine determinants of improvement in QOL, defined as a minimal decline in Clinical COPD Questionnaire (CCQ) of 0.4 points after 12 and 24 months of IDM. We also performed moderation analyses to examine whether predictors of clinical improvement differed between IDM and usual care. RESULTS: Regardless of treatment type, more severe dyspnea (MRC) was the most important predictor of clinically improved QOL at 12 and 24 months, suggesting that these patients have most room for improvement. Clinical improvement with IDM was associated with female gender (12-months) and being younger (24-months), and improvement with usual care was associated with having a depression (24-months). CONCLUSIONS: More severe dyspnea is a key predictor of improved QOL in COPD patients over time. More research is needed to replicate patient characteristics associated with clinical improvement with IDM, such that IDM programs can be offered to patients that benefit the most, and can potentially be adjusted to meet the needs of other patient groups as well. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register, NTR2268. Registered 31 March 2010.

Background: Evaluation of integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity requires a broader evaluation framework and a broader definition of added value than is common in cost-utility analysis. This is possible through the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Methods and results: This paper presents the seven steps of an MCDA to evaluate 17 different integrated care programmes for individuals with multi-morbidity in 8 European countries participating in the 4-year, EU-funded SELFIE project. In step one, qualitative research was undertaken to better understand the decision-context of these programmes. The programmes faced decisions related to their sustainability in terms of reimbursement, continuation, extension, and/or wider implementation. In step two, a uniform set of decision criteria was defined in terms of outcomes measured across the 17 programmes: physical functioning, psychological well-being, social relationships and participation, enjoyment of life, resilience, person-centeredness, continui

Background: The rise of multi-morbidity constitutes a serious challenge in health and social care organisation that requires a shift from disease- towards person-centred integrated care. The aim of the current study was to develop a conceptual framework that can aid the development, implementation, description, and evaluation of integrated care programmes for multi-morbidity. Methods: A scoping review and expert discussions were used to identify and structure concepts for integrated care for multi-morbidity. A search of scientific and grey literature was conducted. Discussion: meetings were organised within the SELFIE research project with representatives of five stakeholder groups (5Ps): patients, partners, professionals, payers, and policy makers. Results: In the scientific literature 11,641 publications were identified, 92 were included for data extraction. A draft framework was constructed that was adapted after discussion with SELFIE partners from 8 EU countries and 5P representatives. The core of the framework is the holistic understanding of the person with multi-morbidity in his or her environment. Around the core, concepts were grouped into adapted WHO components of health systems: service delivery, leadership & governance, workforce, financing, technologies & medical products, and information & research. Within each component micro, meso, and macro levels are distinguished. Conclusion: The framework structures relevant concepts in integrated care for multi-morbidity and can be applied by different stakeholders to guide development, implementation, description, and evaluation.

Health economists are increasingly interested in integrated care in order to support decision-makers to find cost-effective solutions able to tackle the threat that chronic diseases pose on population health and health and social care budgets. However, economic evaluation in integrated care is still in its early years, facing several difficulties. The aim of this paper is to describe the unique nature of integrated care as a topic for economic evaluation, explore the obstacles to perform economic evaluation, discuss methods and techniques that can be used to address them, and set the basis to develop a research agenda for health economics in integrated care. The paper joins the voices that call health economists to pay more attention to integrated care and argues that there should be no more time wasted for doing it.

Objectives: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) disease management (COPD-DM) programme in primary care, called RECODE, compared to usual care. Design: A 2-year cluster-randomised controlled trial. Setting: 40 general practices in the western part of the Netherlands. Participants: 1086 patients with COPD according to GOLD (Global Initiative for COPD) criteria. Exclusion criteria were terminal illness, cognitive impairment, alcohol or drug misuse and inability to fill in Dutch questionnaires. Practices were included if they were willing to create a multidisciplinary COPD team. Interventions: A multidisciplinary team of caregivers was trained in motivational interviewing, setting up individual care plans, exacerbation management, implementing clinical guidelines and redesigning the care process. In addition, clinical decision-making was supported by feedback reports provided by an ICT programme. Main outcome measures: We investigated the impact on health outcomes (quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Clinical COPD Questionnaire, St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire and exacerbations) and costs (healthcare and societal perspective). Results: The intervention costs were €324 per patient. Excluding these costs, the intervention group had €584 (95% CI €86 to €1046) higher healthcare costs than did the usual care group and €645 (95% CI €28 to €1190) higher costs from the societal perspective. Health outcomes were similar in both groups, except for 0.04 (95% CI −0.07 to −0.01) less QALYs in the intervention group. Conclusions: This integrated care programme for patients with COPD that mainly included professionally directed interventions was not cost-effective in primary care.

This study aims to (1) examine the variation in implementation of a 2-year chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management programme called RECODE, (2) analyse the facilitators and barriers to implementation and (3) investigate the influence of this variation on health outcomes. Implementation variation among the 20 primary-care teams was measured directly using a self-developed scale and indirectly through the level of care integration as measured with the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) and the Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC). Interviews were held to obtain detailed information regarding the facilitators and barriers to implementation. Multilevel models were used to investigate the association between variation in implementation and change in outcomes. The teams implemented, on average, eight of the 19 interventions, and the specific package of interventions varied widely. Important barriers and facilitators of implementation were (in)sufficient motivation of healthcare provider and patient, the hi

__Abstract__ The rapid growth and ageing of global population accompanied by unhealthy health behaviour (i.e. smoking, physical inactivity, unhealthy diet and harmful use of alcohol) lead to increasing prevalence of chronic diseases. Worldwide, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) cause more than 63% of all deaths, a number that is expected to increase by 15% at 2020 and by more than 20% at 2030. These mortality rates affect females and males almost equally. Many non-communicable diseases are chronic diseases, like cardiovascular diseases (48% of total deaths due to NCD), cancers (21%), chronic respiratory diseases (12%), and diabetes (4%), which are on the top list of the deadliest NCDs. Twenty five percent of the deaths from NCD occur before the age of 60. Chronic diseases have high impact on global morbidity too. Seventy seven percent of total disability adjusted life years (DALYs) are caused by chronic diseases; mostly by cardiovascular diseases (23% of total DALYs), neuropsychiatric conditions (20%), cancers (11%), respiratory diseases (5%), and diabetes (2%). Furthermore, chronic diseases disproportionately affect people at lower socioeconomic status. At patient-level, chronic diseases and poverty create a vicious cycle whereby poverty exposes people to behavioural and environmental risk factors for chronic diseases and, in turn, the resulting chronic diseases may become an important driver to the downward spiral that leads families towards poverty. At country level, 80% of deaths related to NCDs occur in low-middle income countries. Furthermore, the social impact of chronic diseases is even larger taking into account that they influence the mortality and quality of life of their informal care givers and family.